Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, then state the null hypothesis that will falsify the AGW one.
The warmists claim all weather is evidence of global warming - sunny and hot, or cold, or stormy. Everything. That's why they changed the name of their religion to Climate Change.
They construct an imaginary global temperature then rig the data to support their belief.
There is evidence of temperature swings (on a small scale) that occur every 25-40 years in temperature data from all over the world - this is ignored.
There is evidence of warm and cold era climate swings every 400-600 years, which no scientist yet understands, yet they ignore this data.
No warmist can name any way that the warming theory can be disproved.
That's because it has become a political issue, not a scientific issue.
Ok, then state the null hypothesis that will falsify the AGW one. And then state tests to prove or disprove it.
The warmists claim all weather is evidence of global warming - sunny and hot, or cold, or stormy. Everything. That's why they changed the name of their religion to Climate Change.
They construct an imaginary global temperature then rig the data to support their belief.
There is evidence of temperature swings (on a small scale) that occur every 25-40 years in temperature data from all over the world - this is ignored.
There is evidence of warm and cold era climate swings every 400-600 years, which no scientist yet understands, yet they ignore this data.
No warmist can name any way that the warming theory can be disproved.
The null hypothesis is either that global warming is not occurring, or that no evidence exists to suggest that current human activity is responsible for any temperature increases. Both of these, along with the AGW hypothesis, are falsifiable and testable.
Besides, the global warming hoax supporters do exactly the same thing.
The null hypothesis is either that global warming is not occurring, or that no evidence exists to suggest that current human activity is responsible for any temperature increases. Both of these, along with the AGW hypothesis, are falsifiable and testable.
Besides, the global warming hoax supporters do exactly the same thing.
That's because it has become a political issue, not a scientific issue.
Ah, well this explains why you guys try to pass off your clown blogs and tabloids as references. It doesn't matter if they're factually correct, ideology is what matters.
Anyway, I don't see anything particularly political or controversial being brought up in the OP. Just some denialist saying "I heard me some libruls on the radio and had me a good belly laugh." This thread should be closed.
Yes, the true goal of the AGW alarmists is wealth redistribution on a global basis. And a few elites will reap billions.
And the best way to do that, rather than through tax loopholes and policies that move the money around the way it's done now, is to attempt to enlist the world's climatologists in a big scare tactic and hope that no one ever finds out or that no one spills the beans.
Makes the 9/11 conspiracy look neat and tidy and sensible in comparison.
Are you actually interested in the science-y stuff, or do you just have an agenda?
Since you equated AGW with a religion, my guess is it's the latter. If you're going to go that route though, keep in mind that the same rules apply for no AGW as they do to yes AGW, and therefore you could be a global warming "agnostic."
If you'd like, I could go into the science stuff in a few hours after I get back from church. Let me know.
so in other words you want everything done that can be done regardless of the consequences to stop this "global warming" that might or might not be an issue, just because you dont want to get something wrong. so what happens if we do everything you think should be done to stop global warming, and the planet continues to warm? or what happens if things go the other way and the planet cools? what then?
And .....
How do you get the rest of the industrialized world to go along with it when their economies are just emerging?
Pass all the laws you want in the US but China, Russia, India etc will tell you to go poop in your fedora.
Are you actually interested in the science-y stuff, or do you just have an agenda?
Since you equated AGW with a religion, my guess is it's the latter. If you're going to go that route though, keep in mind that the same rules apply for no AGW as they do to yes AGW, and therefore you could be a global warming "agnostic."
If you'd like, I could go into the science stuff in a few hours after I get back from church. Let me know.
Translation: If I could tell you how to test the hypothesis, then warmists wouldn't have to construct an imaginary 'global temperature' and rig data to support it.
Jobs. Without AGW, there would be much less funding for these scientists. Government funding is in the billions.
Scientists research much phenomena including weather,if their science comes to the conclusion that the Earth is in a warming phase they will publish their findings, i dont see the global science community falsifying results on the average global temperature rising or anything else for that matter just to save their jobs..Your logic seems to imply the Earth's temperature is in fact not rising and all the worlds scientists are lying to protect their jobs.. Really?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.